Conservative Intelligencehttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com
Not Access. Not Lobbying. Just Intelligence.Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:58:40 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.13Miliband’s Threat To Outside Earnings May Drive Tory Mps Over The Edgehttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/milibands-threat-to-outside-earnings-may-drive-tory-mps-over-the-edge/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/milibands-threat-to-outside-earnings-may-drive-tory-mps-over-the-edge/#commentsFri, 24 Oct 2014 16:48:35 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2076Conservative MPs are capable of a wide range of emotions, encompassing the normal human set and then a few extras thrown in. Pride, injured pride, confidence, optimism, crushing depression, panic, fury, resentment, contentment, ambition, resignation, triumph and a host of others are within their repertoire.

Even at the best of times, a healthy parliamentary party will normally feature at least one individual exhibiting each of them. When the political outlook is less good, rather than moving reliably in the same direction “the colleagues” tend to refract into a wide scatter of emotional states.

The current circumstances could have been tailor-made to exhibit this tendency.

Some MPs are bullish about the economy and the EU referendum. Others are furious about the latest invoice from Brussels demanding yet more money or fearful of the cost of living issue.

A few find themselves newly enthused about the future, while an assortment harbour lasting grudges against their leader. New ministers are enjoying their good fortune, while former ministers are grumbling about their defenestration, just or otherwise.

Some believe that UKIP will cost them their seats and intend to fight to the last, while one or two are perhaps considering whether defection might be in their best interests.

In a way, the sheer variety of opinions is Cameron’s biggest curse and his greatest protection. While his troops can be tricky to harness, any would-be opponents struggle with exactly the same problem.

Into this psychological menagerie pitches one of the issues MPs fear the most: outside earnings. New research by The Guardian has generated not only a total figure – £7.2 million – but a league table showing everyone’s extra-parliamentary income. Unfair headlines jostle for space with reasonable replies.

There are suspicions – which are probably accurate – that it’s only a matter of time before Ed Miliband returns to the topic. His attempts to cut through on new issues have almost all failed, so it would make sense for him to return to ground that he has trodden before. This territory also has the added bonus, for him, that more Conservatives than Labour MPs earn money outside Westminster than.

As if there weren’t enough worries for the government benches, any prospect of clamping down on outside earnings would throw a depth charge into the deep waters of the parliamentary party’s psyche.

Not only would banning other work be bad for parliament by depriving Westminster of its (already limited) contact with the outside world, but it would be a personal blow to a number of MPs who may already be wondering if politics is worth all the trouble.

We have already seen a number of experienced politicians announce their intention to leave parliament at the next election, well before what would be their natural retirement date. If lost income is added to the already roiling pot of emotions, we may yet see a few more decide to go.

By Mark Wallace

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Paul Goodman: Immigration won’t win the Conservatives the election ‘The Prime Minister could bang on and on about immigration from now until polling day. He could gamble on voters believing that he has had a real change of heart. Or he could present new plans for EU immigration control as part of a balanced whole. Which do you think sounds more likely to convince the voters?’ Read more http://bit.ly/1ziN1O2

Mark Wallace: Why is Downing Street pressuring Tory MEPs to vote for Jean-Claude Juncker? ‘Downing Street’s position appears to be woefully clear – vote for the Commission, get Hill into the job – but it is causing a degree of chaos among Conservative MEPs. The Prime Minister risks making rebels of people who simply want to follow the policy he himself charted mere months ago, and he can secure no benefit by doing so.’ Read more http://bit.ly/1nwSb3A

Peter Franklin: Thomas Piketty says that rich people are eating capitalism, but what does Bill Gates think? ‘Bill Gates invites us to consider three types of wealthy individual: the entrepreneur, the philanthropist and the playboy. Each may have the same amount of capital, but they use it such different ways that the Piketty’s call for an across-the-board ‘wealth tax’ (i.e. the systematic confiscation of capital) makes no sense.’ Read more http://bit.ly/1wdu5Ou

Andrew Gimson interviews Andrew Tyrie – “These are tax cuts being offered before the headroom for them is available” “The government and indeed all political parties to varying degrees have ring-fenced large parts of public spending, in particular health, schools and overseas aid. And the more you cut into the rest, the smaller the amount left to cut with each successive wave of cuts, and therefore the higher the percentage cut that the rest will have to bear.” Read more http://bit.ly/1yo270o

Emma Carr: Grayling’s plans will censor unpopular views – not quell online threats ‘Rather than tinkering at the edges of the current legislation, there are two key things that the Justice Secretary should be focusing his efforts on: ensuring that the communications legislation is fit for the social media age; and that the police and prosecutors are acutely aware of when it is necessary and proportionate to arrest and prosecute someone for comments made online.’ Read more http://bit.ly/10rBCwf

Paul Goodman: Who should lead the Metropolitan Party? ‘It is easy to see what the manifesto of the London Party – or rather, to be faithful to the argument of Ian’s piece, the Metropolitan Party – might look like. It would be economically liberal and socially liberal. It would be pro-capitalism as well as pro-capital. It would be pro-immigration… But I cannot think of a single Conservative politician – or any politician at all – who speaks for it.’ Read more http://bit.ly/1rr56AG

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/milibands-threat-to-outside-earnings-may-drive-tory-mps-over-the-edge/feed/0Cameron Woos Mrs Rochesterhttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/cameron-woos-mrs-rochester/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/cameron-woos-mrs-rochester/#commentsFri, 17 Oct 2014 16:39:50 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2074“There’s no stunts or backroom deals, just a strong local candidate you can trust.” So wrote David Cameron in a letter sent this week to every voter in Rochester and Strood, where the next UKIP-engineered by-election is to take place towards the end of November. At the end of it, he made the point again – just in case readers had missed it: “no stunts, just a strong local candidate you can trust”.

What did he mean by this? The references to “trust” and “strong” were clear: Mark Reckless, the former Conservative MP whose defection to UKIP forced the by-election, isn’t to be trusted. So, pretty much, was the allusion to “local”: the implication is that Reckless doesn’t have strong roots in the constituency, though he contested the seat’s Medway predecessor not only in the 2005 election but in the 2001 poll which preceded it.

However, Reckless is believed by Downing Street and Conservative Campaign Headquarters to be a less user-friendly figure than his friend Douglas Carwell has proved in Clacton, especially among almost half the voters in the seat – potentially and particularly. These voters have a problem with UKIP that David Cameron, Lynton Crosby and Grant Shapps hope to exploit during the long, long run up to the vote itself on November 20.

They are the women of Rochester and Strood. Now, the Tories themselves are believed to have a problem with women voters – hence, in part, Theresa May’s support for rape centres, Nicky Morgan’s trumpeting of a rise in women sitting on boards and setting up small firms, and William Hague’s campaigning against rape as a weapon of war. (Lord Ashcroft has argued that Conservative and Labour poll ratings among women are actually much the same as those among men, citing evidence from YouGov as well as his own research.)

However, UKIP’s difficulties with women voters are undoubtedly real. Godfrey Bloom, the MEP who joked that
a “women in politics” meeting was “full of sluts” who do not clean behind their fridges has since left the party’s group in the European Parliament. But the remark pointed to a tone and feel about the party that is unmistakable: that it is relatively elderly and markedly male – among its leadership cohort, at least.

There are exceptions, such as Diane James, the party’s candidate in the Eastleigh by-election and now a member of Nigel Farage’s “Shadow Cabinet”. But the UKIP leader himself admitted recently that his blokeish, pint-drinkish, pub-dwelling persona has helped to give the party the feel of “a rugby club on a day out”. An Ashcroft survey of Rochester and Strood found that UKIP has the support of only 21 per cent of women in the constituency.

The Conservative push there thus won’t rely alone on CCHQ’s campaigning machine, which is in good shape under Shapps and Crosby. Nor will it be dependent on mud being flung in the general direction of Reckless, though some will doubtless be hurled: unlike Carswell, he is not particularly popular with his former colleagues; unlike him again, he timed his defection in such a way as to inflict the maximum damage from it; unlike him, too, he misled them about his intentions.

What will also mark the Tory campaign out is its concentration on women. The two candidates who are being put before the seat’s voters in an postal primary are both women, both councillors and both local (up to a point: one of them, Anna Firth, sits on nearby Sevenoaks Council). The Conservatives hope to out-populist UKIP by deploring the victor in the seat-wide ballot as a people’s champion.

“No stunts,” wrote Cameron. But although the postal primary is commendably open, the original selection of these two women was not. It was a tightly controlled exercise. Number Ten knows just how crucial this contest is.

By Paul Goodman

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Paul Goodman: Osborne should cut National Insurance for poorer workers“The ConservativeHome manifesto called for “tax cuts to be focused on those taxes that do most to ‘gum up the works’ of the economy – especially those that get in the way of homes, jobs and savings for ordinary working people”. We listed Stamp Duty…and employees’ and employers’ National Insurance Contributions. This year’s Autumn Statement and next year’s budget would give Osborne an opportunity to act, since action speaks louder than manifesto pledges to a cynical electorate. Workers on the minimum wage should pay no NICS at all. And employers should get an NIC cut to balance any increase in it. This would be good for poorer workers, employers, the economy, and the Party’s electoral prospects – especially in those Midlands and Northern marginals.” Here is an end for the Chancellor to work towards. Read more: http://bit.ly/1yGjY5R

Lord Ashcroft: A five per cent swing to Labour in my latest battleground polling“My research so far shows no net advantage to the Conservatives on the Lib Dem battleground: we have identified eight Lib Dem seats in which the Tories are currently ahead, but another eight in which on current polling the Lib Dems would lose to Labour. To make matters worse for the Tories, my research also puts UKIP ahead in two of their seats, in addition to the one already lost in Clacton. If that situation persists, the Conservatives can afford to lose no more than 21 seats to Labour at the general election if they are to remain the largest party. Unfortunately for them, we have already identified 29 seats currently held by the Conservatives that would fall to Labour if my poll results were repeated at an election. In other words, Labour would become the largest party if results in the seats I have already polled turned into results on election day – and there could well be more to come: while my polling has moved into seats with bigger Tory majorities I have not yet come to the “bite point” at which the potential losses end and Conservative seats consistently start to stay blue.” Read more: http://bit.ly/1ryqgvx

Mark Wallace: Pinning Down Farage – What is UKIP’s economic policy? “As their newfound attachment to protectionism, taxing business and opposing the so-called “bedroom tax” suggests, the pursuit of votes at the expense of principles has seen UKIP shift leftward in recent weeks. They have chosen to chase Labour votes, and at the same time have picked up a large chunk of new members who are left-leaning – two factors that combine to drive the creation of what has been termed Red UKIP. In a way, it’s an extension of their commitment to the LibDem playbook – a smaller party can maximise its chances by posing as all things to all people. Perhaps that’s how it started – saying left-wing things (promising to protect benefits in the Wythenshawe by-election, for example) but reverting to Farage’s centre right economic stances on the national stage. But now left wing economics and rhetoric are gaining a real foothold at the top of the party.” Read more: http://bit.ly/1o8BsEn

Jon Cruddas: “For Scruton, conservatism is a philosophy of attachment. But in life nothing stays attached forever, and so inevitably conservatism is a politics about loss. It is a kind of pragmatic rearguard action to preserve and protect what it considers to be social and human value. It retreats, makes a stand, retreats, holds its ground, retreats. Can there be a settled life when everyone and everything is in motion? It is a question that also goes to the heart of socialism. The politics of socialism is about self-determination. It is a philosophy of human action based in relationships and subject to reciprocity – the give and take which establishes a sense of justice. Its conservative instinct raises the question of equality because each individual is irreplaceable in our mutual dependence. Equality of worth is the ethical core of justice. It is the necessary condition for social freedom which is the basis of a settled life. Edmund Burke describes it as “that state of things in which liberty is secured by equality of restraint”. In the past, we called it fraternity.” Read more: http://bit.ly/ZDatoS

Alexander Temerko: Conventional gas. Interconnectors. More nuclear. How to join the UK energy security dots “The important lesson to learn from our European neighbours, and indeed from the US, is that security and stable prices are best achieved by concentrating on one or two areas and doing them well. Shale gas production in the US has grown rapidly since 2005, and now accounts for two thirds of its natural gas. In France, the predominance of nuclear dates right back to the 1973 oil crisis. Germany, through a huge programme of public spending, has pulled off a remarkable revolution in renewables. Italy, where nuclear power is banned, has focused on gas. The UK, too, must focus on conventional gas and, alongside it, new nuclear capacity and a reorientation of policy towards interconnectors as the only feasible strategy for mitigating rising prices while meeting emissions targets. That’s not to say there isn’t room for shale or renewables; these industries have a role to play provided they are subject to the same tax and regulation as the rest of the energy sector. If on a level playing field such operations are commercially viable, then they are a welcome addition to a diverse energy mix, but to cosset industries that cannot possibly replace coal as the primary source of power generation is a waste of time and money – and both of those are in short supply.” Read more: http://bit.ly/1CfZGgY

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/cameron-woos-mrs-rochester/feed/0To Respond To Defeat In Clacton, The Tories Will Need A Tougher Immigration Policyhttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/to-respond-to-defeat-in-clacton-the-tories-will-need-a-tougher-immigration-policy/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/to-respond-to-defeat-in-clacton-the-tories-will-need-a-tougher-immigration-policy/#commentsFri, 10 Oct 2014 16:35:29 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2072Everyone expected the UKIP candidate, Douglas Carswell, to win in Clacton, but few people thought he would win by the enormous margin of 12,404 votes. An exceptionally rude kick has been administered to David Cameron.

It is not much consolation for the Conservatives that a scarcely less rude kick has been administered to Ed Miliband in the other by-election, Heywood and Middleton, where most observers expected Labour to win, but few foresaw that UKIP would be a mere 617 votes behind.

Miliband and his advisers hope UKIP will damage the Conservatives more than it damages Labour. They have therefore indicated that they will not make an all-out attempt to win the next by-election, in Rochester and Strood, which has been caused by the defection of a second Tory MP, Mark Reckless, to UKIP.

This passivity by Miliband has enraged some of his activists. They think that if Labour wishes to portray itself as the main alternative to the Conservatives in the general election next May, it simply cannot afford to sit out a by-election in this way. Until 2010, Rochester was a Labour seat, and the party should be doing all it can to regain it.

Cameron is certainly obliged to do all he can to win in Rochester. He faces a danger, but also an opportunity. If the Conservatives can win that by-election, they will have demonstrated that they can recover from a setback – the defection of Reckless – and can learn how to connect with disgruntled working-class voters.

But to do that, Cameron has got to develop a stronger position on immigration. On Monday, I visited Rochester for ConHome (see below). Immigration is a very big issue there. You do not need to ask voters about it: in many cases they start telling you about it whether you ask them or not.

Rochester is, in my opinion, winnable for the Conservatives. Reckless is far less popular than Carswell, and at least some voters regard him and UKIP as no better or nobler than the rest of the political class.

But what is the Conservative message on immigration? At the party conference in Birmingham, ConHome devoted a fringe meeting to this subject. Owen Paterson MP observed that immigration is “a huge recruiting agent” for UKIP, which is “quite ruthless” at exploiting the issue.

Paterson went on to point out that Norway, Switzerland and Australia all have higher levels of immigration than the United Kingdom: so the idea promoted by UKIP that if only we leave the European Union, we shall be able to cut immigration, is wrong. To have a thriving economy, Paterson insisted, we need relatively open borders.

The Conservatives are nevertheless going to have to tell voters that this is a power which should rest at national, not European level. If we want to get foreigners to staff our health service, or pick our strawberries, or study in our universities, or keep London as one of the world’s great commercial centres, the responsibility for working out how to do this must rest with British politicians.

Complaints about immigration often take the form of complicated and unverifiable stories about foreigners who come here in order to take advantage of our benefits system. It strikes people as deeply unfair that new arrivals can claim benefits without having ever paid anything in to the system. Here too the Conservatives need a clear policy, perhaps involving a moratorium on all claims for the first year or two, in order to reassure people that our welfare system is not being exploited.

In his acceptance speech in Clacton, Carswell said: “We must be a party for all Britain and all Britons: first and second generation as much as every other.” Unlike Nigel Farage, he presents himself as a One Nation politician. This is something the Tories are going to have to show they can do better than Carswell, if they are to win not just in Rochester but at the general election.

By Andrew Gimson

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Paul Goodman: Yes a great night for UKIP. But what will matter most next May is the marginals Will UKIP take more from Labour than the Conservatives in the blue-red marginals? This is perhaps the key question for next spring – since whether it takes more from either of the two main parties in their “safe” seats matters less. A Lord Ashcroft poll last May in marginal seats found more former Conservative voters than Labour ones among UKIP voters; the July poll found it picking up Labour votes. A recent Fabian Society study suggested that UKIP will indeed damage Labour more than the Conservatives in some key seats. The conventional wisdom to date (and the sum of the betting markets when I last looked) is that reverse is true. If it isn’t, then David Cameron’s chances of making it back to Downing Street should be revised upwards. Read more: http://bit.ly/1st2aaO

Andrew Gimson: The Conservatives have a good chance of winning in Rochester and Strood In Rochester, few voters mentioned Mr Reckless by name, except for a number of people who thought he had behaved badly. He has contested this seat since the general election of 2001, very nearly won it in 2005 and actually managed to take it in 2010, but over this considerable period of time he has not built a personal connection with the voters to rival Mr Carswell’s. At the Eagle Tavern, a friendly pub next to a stretch of Rochester’s medieval and Roman walls, there was a strong ‘plague on all your houses’ feeling about the various political parties, including UKIP. In Clacton, I had found a strong desire to kick the established parties by supporting Mr Carswell. In Rochester, there was no sign of comparable support for Mr Reckless, and a greater tendency not to vote for anyone at all. Read more: http://bit.ly/Zd3XVl

Edward Leigh MP: The mistakes by our party that helped UKIP gain its first MP A whole host of errors conceived or approved of by Tory bigwigs has fostered the steady loss of votes to the Faragists: the deliberate policy of triangulation, the coalition with the Liberals, increased taxes on the middle classes, cuts to the armed forces, failed and wasteful green policies, failing to deliver the promised referendum on Lisbon, the massive increase in international aid spending, and controversial and revolutionary social policies such as same-sex civil marriage…It might help if the front bench was more reflective of the party: not a single male MP who voted for a referendum on Europe (against a three-line whip) has been given any promotion, and those right-wingers who have made it have been forced to stand on their heads for a lot of the time. Read more: http://bit.ly/ZTmVla

Iain Duncan Smith MP: Clacton – the end of the beginning I spent some time in Clacton campaigning and was again struck by how clear-sighted the voters were. What they made clear to me was their frustration, as many had been badly hit by Labour’s great recession, struggling with lower salaried jobs and often falling behind with their mortgages. Although they could see the economy was improving and their prospects were better, they still felt that lack of security for them and their families. They were also frustrated about what they perceived as an influx of immigrants, mostly from Europe, they were adamant that they wanted this controlled in or out of the EU and they wanted to have their say on whether we left the EU. They were also disenchanted with what they perceive as Westminster insincerity. Read more: http://bit.ly/1tJ2DlA

Iain Dale: The Lib Dems are like cattle being loaded up to go to the abattoir The Lib Dems were in Glasgow, which has the worst conference centre of them all. Cavernous, hot, lacking in atmosphere, it almost swallowed up the Lib Dems. Bearing in mind they’re politically f***** they seemed in remarkably good humour, as if they had a collective belief that it would all come right in the end. Sorry, guys. It won’t. I spoke at a fringe meeting where I went through all their constituencies and told them if they retained more than half of them I’d be very surprised indeed… It all reminded me of my childhood, when I would stand by and watch the calves being loaded into the cattle truck to be taken to the abattoir. They cheerfully trotted up the ramp. Read more: http://bit.ly/ZimdfZ

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/to-respond-to-defeat-in-clacton-the-tories-will-need-a-tougher-immigration-policy/feed/0The Tories Leave Birmingham With A New-Found Confidencehttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/the-tories-leave-birmingham-with-a-new-found-confidence/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/the-tories-leave-birmingham-with-a-new-found-confidence/#commentsFri, 03 Oct 2014 15:53:23 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2070No-one knew quite what to expect when the Conservative family gathered in Birmingham on Sunday. Mark Reckless had just delivered the second UKIP defection blow in as many months, and Brooks Newmark’s indiscretions were causing embarrassment (though less existential questions for the party).

If anything, observers might have expected a depressed conference mood.

Instead, though, the bad press served to galvanise the grassroots and parliamentary party alike. The mood was combative – from the Prime Minister, who toured fringe events giving tubthumping speeches before his formal address, through MPs, who were more bullish than they have been for quite some time, to the party members, many of whom are preparing to go to Rochester and Strood.

Ironically, much of that was thanks to Mark Reckless. He lied about his intentions and timed his announcement to maximise the damage and disruption to his old party. In doing so, he made the partisan element of his decision clear.

Whereas Douglas Carswell’s departure was greeted with more sorrow than anger, Reckless’ choice to jab his former colleagues in the eye has woken the Tory bulldog. The party leadership believes its machine can beat him in the forthcoming by-election, and intends to throw everything it has got at the fight.

Whereas Clacton is mostly given up as lost, Rochester and Strood is thought to be less fertile ground for UKIP, and the man himself is a less able politician than Carswell. If there’s a chance to stop the purple bandwagon, then Shapps and co intend to take it.

The content of the Prime Minister’s big speech raised his party’s morale even further. Issuing personal challenges to Miliband and his team, tough talk on the NHS and pledges of lower taxes, for the first time Cameron spoke as much to his party in the room as to voters at home.

The contrast between his performance and that of the Labour leader last week was stark, and the Tory media team followed it up with a near-clean sweep of newspaper front pages the next day.

All in all, David Cameron’s ninth conference as Conservative leader left Tories feeling positive about their prospects in May. Today’s YouGov poll, giving the party its first lead in 20 months, will build the feeling still further.

And yet, and yet. The electoral realities are still stacked against us. Unequal boundaries give Labour a huge in-built advantage, regardless of whether Miliband can remember the deficit. UKIP can still stop dozens of Conservatives becoming MPs by scooping a few thousand votes here and there, even if they don’t win any seats.

So the new optimism in Tory hearts is about to come up against some serious hurdles. The next few weeks will give some signs of whether it will overcome them.

By Mark Wallace

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Paul Goodman: Grayling takes the Conservatives to the brink of ECHR exit – a giant step away from Europe ‘Grayling’s proposals aren’t very brave: were they so, he would have announced that a Conservative Government would simply quit the Convention and Court. But they are extraordinarily bold – a flash of lightning from out of the blue.’ Read more: http://is.gd/0hFcuR

Mark Wallace: Mark Reckless follows Carswell and defects to UKIP ‘Daniel Hannan is now the last of the ‘Three Musketeers’ left in the Conservative Party – at Reckless’ wedding Hannan was Best Man while Carswell was an usher; at Hannan’s wedding, Reckless was his Best Man; Hannan and Carswell are godfathers to each others’ children. There could be no starker illustration of the divide on the Right than the three finding themselves in competing parties.’ Read more: http://is.gd/rPYv94

Mark Field: The limitations of raising tax thresholds ‘To put it bluntly, those earning below the threshold at which income tax kicks in have little incentive to support lower rates for those paying it. The larger that group the more difficult it will be for us as Conservatives to make a convincing, credible, widely appealing case for lower taxes.’ Read more: http://is.gd/P8AZly

Tim Montgomerie: Are press cheerleaders for Cameron’s tax cuts being fiscal hypocrites? ‘The Prime Minister has made Conservative promises that he has refused to make before. He’s done so because of the threat of UKIP. They are risky promises. Risky because they do endanger the Tory reputation for fiscal seriousness. Dangerous because they don’t much help the Tories’ “party of the rich” problem.’ Read more: http://is.gd/G5NZD5

Rebecca Coulson: I’m not defined by being a woman ‘I’m from the North East, but do I (not least because our immediate world is increasingly global) need to define myself as North Eastern? I’m a Conservative – and I’m certainly into the practical application of strongly-held views – but does this define me? I’m also British, white, self-employed, Anglican, newly 29, and – yes – a woman.’ Read more: http://is.gd/992l3d

Mark Wallace: EXCLUSIVE: Conservative Party membership has risen to 149,800 – up 11.7 per cent ‘The increase of 11.7 per cent in a year will be hailed by Shapps as “the first rise in a decade”. It’s certainly welcome news that the lengthy and severe decline in party membership hasn’t just been halted, it’s now being reversed.’ Read more: http://is.gd/YWTfqL

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/the-tories-leave-birmingham-with-a-new-found-confidence/feed/021 People To Watch As Next Week’s Conservative Conference Loomshttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/21-people-to-watch-as-next-weeks-conservative-conference-looms/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/21-people-to-watch-as-next-weeks-conservative-conference-looms/#commentsFri, 26 Sep 2014 15:27:10 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=20681. Those two MP defectors to UKIP – if, of course, they exist at all. If so, they will presumably turn up on Saturday evening. If they don’t, the media will treat this as a further sign that the Party isn’t grown-up, since it talked but didn’t deliver.
2. George Osborne. The Conservative election strategy is that a growing economy will return David Cameron to Downing Street. The Chancellor must convince floating voters in those Midlands and Northern marginals that the recovery is real and for them.

3. Rory Stewart. The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, former governor of an Iraq province, award-winning author and friend of the Prince of Wales is an important voice in the debate about how best to deal with ISIS, Iraq and Syria.

4. Sayeeda Warsi. Will the former “Senior Minister of State”, who resigned over Government policy on Gaza, turn up and cause trouble for the leadership? She has promised no kiss and tell memoir – but that doesn’t rule out publication of the diary that she hasn’t denied keeping while in office.

5. Lord Ashcroft. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davis, I would say that, wouldn’t I? But the proprietor of ConservativeHome will have more polling to present on Sunday afternoon, and it will be nervously awaited by Conservative Campaign Headquarters.

6. John Redwood. The veteran MP, former Cabinet member and two-times leadership contender has made the running on an English Parliament with English Ministers. He may carry less weight with the 2010 intake, but he is bound to push the cause again this week.

7. Michael Gove. The new Chief Whip is breaking all Francis Urquhart-type rules associated with the post. Whether making statements, briefing stories or charming colleagues, he carries a weight with David Cameron that none of his predecessor has. Watch for a conference speech.

8. Liam Fox. The former Defence Secretary was to return to Cabinet, it was briefed last summer. In the end, he was offered a junior post – and not by the Prime Minister directly. He wasn’t best pleased, and will make a major address at a ConservativeHome event on Tuesday.

9. Steve Hilton. He’s back! The man who dreamt up the Big Society, strived to drive through public service reform and eventually quit for California has returned, briefly – and is working on the Prime Minister’s conference speech. Old acquaintance hasn’t been forgot.

10. Ruth Davidson. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives played a blinder during the referendum campaign, winning plaudits from left as well as right. She will doubtless get star billing at conference. Davidson would be future national leadership material were she based south of the border.

11. Grant Shapps. The Party Chairman looks to have good news to announce about computers, membership, conference attendance and CCHQ’s campaigning programme for marginal seats, Team 2015. ConservativeHome will have more detail over the weekend.

12. Lord Feldman. The other Party Chairman (yes, there are two of them) is the man who has ensured that the Conservatives will fight the next election without any debt. Consequently, Cameron is deeply in his – whatever Feldman said or didn’t say to two journalists about “swivel-eyed” Party activists.

13. Michael Fallon. The Defence Secretary has the tricky task of persuading a conference that will be thinking back to the Iraq War of 2003 that it will all be different this time. Some will be sceptical. His speech and its reception will be watched closely.

14. Owen Paterson. Unlike Fox, Paterson was removed from the Cabinet this summer. Like him, he is furious at his treatment. He has warned that he is “bloody well not going away”, and will be speaking at a ConservativeHome fringe event on Tuesday.

15. Theresa May. The Home Secretary and aspirant leader will be keeping her head down. She’s doing a few fringe meetings this week – and will doubtless want to say something about fighting modern slavery, a cause close to her heart – but won’t want to make any waves.

16. Boris Johnson. The newly-selected Conservative candidate for Uxbridge will doubtless seek a way of squaring loyalty to Cameron with his long-running leadership campaign, both in his speech to the conference proper and at ConservativeHome’s Rally for Victory.

17. Graham Brady. The relationship between Cameron and the Chairman of the 1922 Committee are tense, but the former needs the latter after the latest setback to his relationship with his Party – Downing Street’s handling of the Scottish referendum campaign.

18. Sajid Javid. The Culture Secretary is seen as outside runner for the leadership if the Conservatives lose next year. His back story is a dream one for the Tories – immigrant background, state school, self-made success, real-world experience. Watch him.

19. Lynton Crosby. The campaign-hardened Australian has imposed shape and discipline on what was, before his arrival, a wavering Conservative operation. Will his relentless focus on leadership, the economy, welfare and security be enough over the next six months or so?

20. Chris Grayling. What will the Tories do about the European Court of Human Rights? If the Justice Secretary has no announcement to make, it will suggest that there is no internal party agreement at the top over whether to reform Britain’s membership or, as Theresa May now favours, leave outright.

21. And finally…the Prime Minister himself. He must square seeking to persuade the country that he’s different from much of his party with simultaneously persuading his party that he’s really one of them. The stakes are higher than ever for him in his last pre-election conference speech.

By Paul Goodman

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Peter Hoskin: Cameron’s conference speeches tell the sad story of his leadership“You may disagree with my politics, and be left thinking: so what? Isn’t Cameron right about housing benefit claims? And who cares about all that green crap and BS? But this isn’t just a matter of agreement. It’s a matter of conviction. Look back at that list that Cameron once totted up: family, community, society, the NHS, the environment – “these are the things that matter most to me.” He used to talk about them all of the time; now he talks about them infrequently, if at all. Do they not matter to him now? Did they ever really matter to him? If the Prime Minister is not sure of his beliefs, few people will believe in him. And if he doesn’t want to take it from me, how about from himself? It was Cameron who said, in his conference speech of 2006, that “real substance… it’s about character, judgment and consistency.” Draw a line under that last word. Italicise that last word. Type it in bold. Real substance is about consistency. If only that was still part of the Prime Minister’s personal lexicon.” Read more: http://is.gd/nvkbr5

Paul Goodman: The Commons must ask some hard questions tomorrow about bombing Iraq“Here are some lines of enquiry. How likely is British bombing of Iraq to achieve anything – other than to make us feel that we are somehow hitting back against “Jihadi John”? Is ISIS deliberately provoking western-led bombings, in order to establish itself as the champion of the “Arab Street”, and if so are we flying into a trap? Isn’t bombing more likely to work if it has the support of special forces on the ground, working in conjunction with local forces, even if the mass use of ground troops is (rightly) ruled out? Before the original invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon was convinced that, as locals greeted American troops, “flowers would be stuck on the end of rifles”, according to Admiral Lord Boyce. Ambitions since have grown more modest. When British planes fly to Iraq, as they surely soon will, will they really be doing more than “mowing the grass”?” Read more: http://is.gd/WUmtOg

Natalie Elphicke: The dangers of Miliband’s Mansion Tax“The outcome: we could all pay more income based taxes on property on an annual basis – whether or not people are earning the income to pay for them. At the moment we primarily tax property as a capital asset: on transfer of ownership, on death, when realised for care home and other costs. To tax a capital asset on an income basis is to further tax the accumulation of individual wealth during a lifetime. Labour’s Mansion Tax could end up as 500 pages of legislation that would not just consume large amounts of Government energy better spent elsewhere, it would fail to raise the amount expected because of mass avoidance and creative financial instruments. This tax would be deeply harmful to the property industry, to construction, to jobs, money and economic growth. Far from hurting rich people, it would harm everyone.” Read more: http://is.gd/HGuUCR

Mark Wallace: Balls sings a song of savings, does a dance of deficit reduction, then leaves the stage to spend, spend, spend “There’s the awkward fact that Balls has already promised to spend the money from just one of his new taxes at least eleven times over – splashing the same cash over and over again on every shiny goody he and his colleagues can imagine. So voters have a choice of which Shadow Chancellor to believe in. The one on stage today, dressed as a stern, responsible guardian of the taxpayer, singing ditties about “difficult decisions”, or the one that will emerge from his dressing room five minutes after the act is over, gripping the public credit card tightly in his hand and heading straight out to spend, spend, spend. After 13 years of Labour profligacy, and four years of them in Opposition denying they did anything wrong, today’s one-off performance won’t do anything to dispel the electorate’s doubts.” Read more: http://is.gd/7HpYlkNadhim Zahawi MP: No more inertia. We need English Votes for English Laws as soon as possible.“Some are already raising questions about the timetable for reform. They forget that kicking the can down the road is exactly how we ended up with unequal treatment for England in the first place. Constitutional reform is always difficult. Compared to the latest foreign policy crisis, or the pressure to deliver jobs, it will never be seen as an immediate priority. But this can no longer justify inertia. In the economic arena we’ve shown what can be achieved if you have a plan and stick to it – we must take the same decisive approach to the English Question. There’s a valuable debate to be had about further powers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet first and foremost, we must look at English votes for English laws. Parliament has long voted on bills which apply to England (or England and Wales) only; it’s high time we reviewed the role of MPs who don’t have a personal stake in the legislative process.” Read more: http://is.gd/bRDO3M

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/21-people-to-watch-as-next-weeks-conservative-conference-looms/feed/0Will Cameron Go Fast And Slow On Devolution All-Around?http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/will-cameron-go-fast-and-slow-on-devolution-all-around/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/will-cameron-go-fast-and-slow-on-devolution-all-around/#commentsFri, 19 Sep 2014 15:23:34 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2066The Prime Minister announced this morning that more devolution for Scotland and reform elsewhere – specifically, action on English votes for English laws – will take place “in tandem” and “at the same pace”. Draft legislation will be “published by January”.

His statement opens up two possible outcomes.

The first is that he pushes for the draft legislation to be agreed as quickly as possible, and for it then to be implemented as quickly as possible – seeking agreement from his own Party and the Liberal Democrats.

The advantage of this approach is that it might just get some form of English votes for English laws on the statute book by the next election – thereby slashing Labour’s chances of passing England-related legislation through the Commons if Ed Miliband wins next May. It might also shut up Nigel Farage – that budding English nationalist.

The second is that he delays. This would let Labour off the hook in England. But it would leave Miliband dangerously exposed to Alex Salmond in Scotland – who would hold Labour, still the SNP’s main rival there, responsible for the failure to devolve more powers.

And while it would leave the Conservatives open to attack from UKIP, it might also avoid the risk of a revolt from those Conservative MPs who think that Cameron should go further than English votes for English laws – and go for a fully-fledged English Parliament and Government. The more the subject is topical, the harder they will push.

The arguments are finely balanced, but I suspect that the Prime Minister will seek to delay – if for no other reason than that he is short of time. Constitutional reform cannot both be thoroughly thought through and rushed through Parliament as an election approaches.

Furthermore, it risks becoming a distraction from the economy and security-based campaign that Lynton Crosby wants to run. The odds favour a gradual go-slow.

Cameron’s gamble on the Scottish Referendum has worked, but at a high price – his last-minute promise that the Barnett Formula will remain has infuriated many Tory MPs.

Once again, the argument that Downing Street has tactics but no strategy is being widely voiced. I expect Cameron to survive until the election, but the mood this week has been extraordinarily bleak.

By Paul Goodman

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Paul Goodman: A new model for the constitution. A new model for Conservative leadership.“The sense today among Conservative MPs may be that Scotland’s No vote proves that Downing Street made the right calls – that the gamble of the “vow”, with its pledged retention of Barnett, was never meant all that seriously and has paid off handsomely. However, they are far more likely to believe that Number 10′s exam crisis style of leadership has once again been found wanting – but, this time, on a matter so serious that it cannot be allowed to continue. Very simply, many Conservative MPs will believe that the Prime Minister made a pledge to Scotland that may not have been necessary, given the margin of yesterday’s No vote, and which certainly wasn’t thought through.” Read more: http://is.gd/QcmYMd

John Redwood MP: Now is the time to Speak for England“We then need ways of handling the devolved issues. Scotland has her Parliament and Northern Ireland and Wales their Assemblies. England needs her Parliament. I suggest we create that cheaply and easily by saying all Westminster MPs elected for English constituencies will meet at Westminster as the English Parliament on days or times when the Union Parliament does not meet, to settle all devolved issues for England. We cannot answer the problem of lopsided and one-sided devolution by devolving powers to some English cities or regions. The new powers will include the right to set the rate of Income tax. England will need to do that for the whole country. England will need her own Health Minister and her own Education Minister for the whole country. There will be no need of a Union Health or Education Minister, as these powers will all be devolved.” Read more: http://is.gd/62dBK2

Henry Hill: The critical mystery – how will different parts of Scotland vote?“There is an extraordinary amount of room for surprises – even before you factor in which way the undecided will swing or whether there is a “quiet No” effect similar to Major’s “quiet Tories” who so misled the pollsters in 1992. If I had to offer two areas to watch out for on the basis of what I’ve been able to find out, it would be these. First, Scottish Labour’s traditional heartlands in Glasgow and the west, to see if the SNP have managed to make a critical breakthrough into the formerly unionist working class. Second, ex-Tory SNP areas such as Perth & Kinross, Angus, and Moray, to see whether or not the nationalists have managed to translate conventional political success into support for radical change.” Read more: http://is.gd/kDyTm9

Andrew Gimson: Shy Unionists will see the No campaign to victory, says Ruth Davidson“The No campaign will win by a wider margin than the opinion polls predict. So says Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives: for in her view those who refuse to answer the pollsters’ questions – the undecideds and the don’t knows – are in reality closet Noes…We shall know on Friday morning whether Davidson is right, but after two and a half years of campaigning she seems remarkably calm: calmer, one might say, than some of the Tories in London. In her view “people in Scotland are really fair”, so have waited for a long time for Alex Salmond to answer their questions about independence, before the realisation has dawned on them that he is not going to give any answers.” Read more: http://is.gd/nyZ3yN

Charlotte Leslie: ISIS. Putin. Which way do the enemies of both England and Scotland want to vote to go on Thursday?“Beyond the relatively parochial turmoil of what Scotland feels about itself lie the gritty facts of global reality: a hundred years on from the First World War, global security is increasingly precarious. Britain and the West have powerful enemies in the plague of extreme Islam and ISIS, and a formidable opponent in Putin and Russia, destabilising Eastern Europe. I wonder how Islamist extremists and any other enemies of Britain and the West will want Scottish people to vote. I doubt it would be for a united, strengthened military capability of Britain. Against this context, the entire debate seems particularly introspective and self-serving (and like similar accusations made against the Establishment, self-serving to their own detriment), and starkly void of any responsibility for the real security of those Scottish citizens that the SNP say they want to serve.” Read more: http://is.gd/T2QtGr

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/will-cameron-go-fast-and-slow-on-devolution-all-around/feed/0Whatever The Result, The Scottish Referendum Has Killed Blair’s Devolution Settlementhttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/whatever-the-result-the-scottish-referendum-has-killed-blairs-devolution-settlement/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/whatever-the-result-the-scottish-referendum-has-killed-blairs-devolution-settlement/#commentsFri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:14 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2064The Scottish referendum result is up in the air – polls swing from No to Yes and back again, all within the margin of error. The rush from Westminster to Scotland, not only of the party leaders but of scores of Labour MPs, demonstrates how seriously the prospect of a Yes result is being taken.

But regardless of the outcome, the Blair model of British devolution is dead.

Obviously, a Yes vote would put paid to it by dispatching one of its member nations.

But even if Scotland votes to stay in the Union, a large minority of Scots will have shown their opposition to the current arrangement. Today’s balance of powers, fiscal rights and responsibilities clearly does not work, either to fulfil its practical purpose or its political aim of bursting Scottish nationalism’s bubble.

Now the three main party leaders have pledged to give Scotland more powers should she vote No. Fulfilling that pledge will be far more complex than its speedy announcement made it sound, for three reasons.

First, it’s doubtful that the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders can really come to a consensus in a few short weeks. Each has a different worldview, and each has different electoral priorities.

Second, the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom cannot just be a matter for the party leaders to agree among themselves. Each will consult with their own MPs, but the consultation and debate needs to go far wider than just Westminster or the political class. The issue is both highly technical and extremely emotional – claims of an establishment stitch-up are widespread enough without actually carrying one out.

Third, Scotland is not the only country whose heart has been influenced by this referendum. English MPs are now asking when powers will be devolved for their constituents. Our ConservativeHome manifesto last week urged a federal settlement with devolution for all the Home Nations. Nigel Farage is sniffing round the prospect of an English nationalist pitch to voters come 2015. In pubs, newspaper letters pages and online, England is increasingly peeved at the continued influence from (and subsidy to) Scotland.

In short, even if promising more powers for the Scots does save the Union next week, the details will be hard to pin down, any agreement would need the involvement of the British people as a whole and a settlement which disregards the lack of devolution in England would be not only unfair but electorally risky.

All of these concerns add to what is already a tense atmosphere around David Cameron. With Iraq and Syria in flames, Russia invading Ukraine and the Clacton by-election all disrupting what he hoped would be an Autumn spent talking about “Our Long Term Economic Plan”, a constitutional crisis is not what the Prime Minister needs.

And yet one is upon him whether he likes it or not. Some Tory MPs openly talk of his future being in doubt if Scotland votes to leave.

If he survives the immediate aftermath of the referendum, he may still find himself stretched on the rack by inexorable forces making demands which any politician would struggle to fulfil – still less a politician hobbled by Coalition, with a General Election only a few months away.

By Mark Wallace

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Mark Wallace: Why isn’t growth translating into votes? ‘Growth returned, has continued to strengthen and shows no signs of going away. It’s happy news for the nation, and ought to bring with it a political windfall. After all, everyone knows “it’s the economy, stupid” – right? Well, it always was the economy, stupid – until now.’ – Read more http://is.gd/LJqdbX

Paul Goodman: Will the Party fight the right campaign in Clacton? The signs are good ‘The first option is to fight a clean campaign, based on attacking Douglas Carswell politically – and, more importantly, making the Tory case. The other is to fight a filthy campaign, based on attacking Carswell personally.’ – Read more http://is.gd/hg49Js

Nadine Dorries MP: Here’s my abortion reform plan. And I won’t be frightened off it by the Westminster bubble elites. ‘The Abortion Act of ‘67 is now virtually defunct, and abortion practice is decided behind closed doors by unelected civil servants in the Department of Health, or by the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is not how a democracy works.’ – Read more http://is.gd/YVCvG7

Mark Wallace: Labour are to blame for this mess in Scotland ‘Scotland may still vote No. But it shouldn’t ever have got this close in the first place – whether the Union separates next week or it limps over the line after a last ditch effort, we shouldn’t forget it was Labour that messed up from the start.’ – Read more http://is.gd/xh2fqc

Graeme Archer: A town called Ardrossan ‘I’m on the verge of being made into a foreigner, against my will, and can think of nothing else, certainly not Brighton or Clacton. Forgive me, you’ve heard my fears before. So (where we came in) let me tell you something new. Just in case the vote is Yes, and Scotland leaves. Just in case this is my last chance. Let me tell you about my home, and see if it sounds foreign to you.’ – Read more http://is.gd/2tZ7l4

Stephen Tall: All three parties’ worst nightmare – winning the next election ‘My ‘what happens next’ for the three possible 2015 outcomes: If the Tories win, they’ll tear themselves apart. If Labour wins, they’ll be torn apart by others. If neither wins, the Lib Dems will be in no position to pick up the torn apart pieces. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.’ – Read more http://is.gd/zVRjlx

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/whatever-the-result-the-scottish-referendum-has-killed-blairs-devolution-settlement/feed/0Two Conservative Scenarios If Scotland Votes Yeshttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/two-conservative-scenarios-if-scotland-votes-yes/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/two-conservative-scenarios-if-scotland-votes-yes/#commentsMon, 08 Sep 2014 15:17:20 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2062Scenario One: David Cameron does not resign as Prime Minister (or as Conservative leader). Nor does any member of the Cabinet other than Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary. The Coalition hangs together. The Conservative Parliamentary Party rallies round its leader. UKIP’s attempt to provoke an English nationalist backlash comes to nothing. Perhaps unexpectedly, Ed Miliband is blamed for the loss of Scotland – since the No campaign was essentially run by Labour. A deal on the remaining presence of MPs from Scotland at Westminster is swiftly agreed between the political parties, and the election takes place next May as expected.

Scenario Two: David Cameron either resigns as Prime Minister (and Conservative leader) or is forced out by his Party – with or without Tory Cabinet or other Ministerial resignations. If the Fixed Term Act isn’t scrapped so that a snap election can be held, a caretaker Conservative Prime Minister replaces Cameron – perhaps William Hague. A Tory leadership election either then takes place quickly; or maybe is delayed until the New Year. The Coalition holds and the interim Prime Minister is replaced by the new Conservative leader. Or the Coalition breaks up, in which case Ed Miliband may be asked if he can form a Government, or an election is held – with the Fixed Term Act perhaps being scrapped at this later stage.

Your guess is as good as mine as to which if these two outline routes the Conservative Party and the country will find themselves travelling if Scotland votes Yes. But either way, it’s necessary to sketch them.

For although Scotland is still likely to vote No, that outcome is very far from certain. It’s time to fasten our seat-belts.

By Paul Goodman

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Paul Goodman: An open letter to Matthew Parris. And a question – does the Conservative Party really want to survive?I am beginning to wonder if not wanting him to win is enough for all of us: if the quarrels, resentments and grievances of the long years since 1990 – the heaped-up burden of time – will collapse “the oldest and most successful political party in the history of the world” beneath its weight, perhaps sooner rather than later. “This long war of words and writings will end in blows,” warned Erasmus. The violence of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation followed, and the horror of the 30 Years War. “My Party,” you called it yesterday. But it isn’t yours: it’s ours. If it lasts. The question is unavoidable. Does the Conservative Party really want to stay together? Read more: http://bit.ly/1BaS54u

Peter Hoskin: Pinning Down Miliband – Jobs“But there are a couple of differences between then and now. The first is that, as part of an exaggerated effort to sound tough on benefits, Labour have made their new scheme compulsory: either claimants sign-up or they’ll get less from signing on….This means that the figures are unlikely to be as good the second time around. The group of participants won’t just be keen beans who put themselves forward for work. The second difference is the general climate. The Future Jobs Fund was introduced at a time of recession…But, now that the economy’s recovering, youth unemployment declined by practically the same amount between the last two quarters alone. And that’s without any cost to the state. The issue isn’t really how Miliband will pay for his “jobs guarantee” – a tax on bankers’ bonuses, as per – it’s more about whether it’s the right policy in the first place.” Read more: http://bit.ly/1lBAUWc

Interview by Andrew Gimson: Douglas Carswell – The Tory leadership views the Conservatives as “the property of a small clique, not a mass movement”“Carswell is at pains to emphasise the good opinion that he has of very many Conservatives: “I’m not implying anything disparaging. Bear in mind that I have a lot of friends in the Conservative Party. I agree with a huge amount of things the Conservative Party stands for. And its activists and most of its MPs believe in the things I believe in…The people in the upper echelons of the party are not on the side of those good, decent people. I think they are not serious about real change.” Read more: http://bit.ly/1nrnBmB

Tom Tugendhat: How to renew NATO“NATO also needs to think of non-traditional threats, and what acts could trigger an Article 5 response. 60 years ago, the answer to this would have been simple Soviet troops crossing into Norway or West Germany would have resulted in a united action. But today, when Russian government hackers close down an economy, or could potentially murder hundreds in hospitals and towns by disrupting electrical supplies, the answer is less obvious. Can NATO respond militarily if the soldiers attacking them are in a tower block in Shanghai and are part of the Chinese Army’s Unit 61398, responsible for cyber warfare? Should NATO build a common cyber-defence policy to counter-attack enemy networks? The discussion is becoming more urgent.” Read more: http://bit.ly/1CtQ3Oo

Lord Ashcroft: Carswell has a 32-point lead over the Tories in my Clacton pollEven allowing for some movement in vote shares as the campaign unfolds over the next month, the likely outcome of the by-election is clear. What happens to the seat at the general election seven months later is rather less settled. As things stand, the indication is that Carswell could hold the seat, but perhaps with a reduced majority. In my poll 39 per cent said they would probably vote UKIP again at the general election next May, 22 per cent would vote Conservative and 15 per cent Labour – though a further 17 per cent said they did not know, would not vote, or refused to say. Among those naming a party, that puts UKIP on 48 per cent, a 21-point lead over the Tories. Read more: http://bit.ly/1q6Wr9A

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/two-conservative-scenarios-if-scotland-votes-yes/feed/0Cameron’s Ability To Neutralise Opponents Is Brilliantly Illustrated By His Handling Of The New Surveillance Lawhttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/camerons-ability-to-neutralise-opponents-is-brilliantly-illustrated-by-his-handling-of-the-new-surveillance-law/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/camerons-ability-to-neutralise-opponents-is-brilliantly-illustrated-by-his-handling-of-the-new-surveillance-law/#commentsFri, 11 Jul 2014 15:09:12 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2057David Cameron will always do what the Establishment considers to be prudent. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, sprung upon the Cabinet on Thursday morning, is a case in point.

Cameron has been told by the security services that these powers are needed. He has therefore set out to square Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband: an act which is in his own political interest. He has assured them that it is simply a question of maintaining the surveillance powers which the authorities already have. There is nothing unreasonable or irresponsible about the proposals: the unreasonable and irresponsible course of action would be to oppose them.

Clegg and Miliband may have haggled about one or two details. But they felt, essentially, that they had no choice but to go along with what Cameron was suggesting. They allowed themselves to be bounced into presenting Parliament with a fait accompli. Our parliamentarians do not have much to do, but they are not going to get the chance to fill their empty days with careful scrutiny of The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill.

This style of politics makes Cameron a very dangerous opponent. He behaved like this when he formed the coalition: Clegg was presented with what sounded like an overwhelmingly reasonable offer, and was given very little time to think about it. The Establishment did not want the risky prospect of a second election within a few months, after a period of minority government: it wanted stability, control, predictability, safety.

These are some of the qualities Cameron offers. By embracing Clegg, he ensured that there would not be another election for five years. Clegg was converted into a pillar of the Establishment. The Liberal Democrats lost their independence: no longer could they be the insurgents of British politics. At the next election, they will probably lose a large proportion of their MPs. Cameron has inflicted terrible damage on them, and will walk away with an innocent smile on his face.

Can Cameron do the same to Ed Miliband? He is certainly trying to do so. Miliband too gets presented with the horrible choice between becoming a pillar of the Establishment, or an outright rebel. On the question of surveillance powers, he has allowed himself to be drawn into Cameron’s system of control. At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Miliband likewise went along with the appointment of Lady Butler-Sloss to head the inquiry into child abuse: an appointment which anti-Establishment people, including some on Miliband’s own benches, found highly objectionable.

The same thing happened a few weeks ago when Cameron opposed Jean-Claude Juncker’s appointment as President of the European Commission: Miliband felt obliged to go along with what the Prime Minister had already decided to do. The Labour leader is in the process of allowing himself to be emasculated. He detects fewer and fewer subjects on which he can attack Cameron. For the last two weeks, he has had to get through PMQs by wrangling about National Health Service statistics.

During the European elections, Nigel Farage led a successful insurgency against Cameron. But it is doubtful whether Farage can sustain that rebellion on the less favourable terrain of a general election.

Boris Johnson has the temperament of an insurgent, but cannot rise against the leader of his own party. And the same applies to the many Tory backbenchers who oppose at least some of what their leader is doing. In Thursday’s debate about the European Arrest Warrant, Jacob Rees-Mogg compared the Prime Minister to a jelly fish.

Rees-Mogg meant Cameron has no back bone. But jelly fish are also able to inspire fear in anyone who wants to swim in the same bit of sea. For his opponents, Cameron has become a terrifying figure, who offers them an impossible choice between becoming yes-men or turning into wild-eyed rebels.

By Andrew Gimson

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME HOME

Peter Hoskin: Immigration restrictions are here to stay – but what should be restricted and why? “Folk like me point to the piles of cash that British universities are missing out on. Folk like Sir Andrew Green point to the persistence of bogus colleges and fake courses. But something that isn’t said enough is this: the information that both sides rely on is terribly incomplete. For instance, did you know that it was only in 2012 that the Office for National Statistics started asking departing migrants what their original reason for immigration was? Until then, we knew whether incoming migrants were arriving for study. But we didn’t know whether outgoing migrants had first come over for study. So a comparison couldn’t be made between the numbers arriving and the numbers leaving. The information wasn’t there.” Read More http://bit.ly/1rdoGlz

Paul Goodman: More spies, less snooping “The easiest course for the security services and police to take is to argue for a simple extension of surveillance powers. This may be understandable, but it should be resisted. Very simply, human intelligence is more likely to turn up evidence of terror plots than mass trawls. There will always be voices to claim that the latest security threat – yesterday, Al Qaeda; today, ISIS; tomorrow, another Islamist terror group (in all likelihood) – justifies sweeping surveillance measures. But the best means of preventing future 7/7s and protecting other Lee Rigby’s is intelligence. As it happens, the perpetrators of both atrocities were on the security services’ radar. The latter argue that they need more resources to keep us safe – and the threat is real and their work invaluable. The clear and present danger to our national security is from violent Islamism. The case for shifting defence resources from external to internal security is thus as strong as ever. We need more spies and informers.” Read More http://bit.ly/1tqjvTD

Nicholas Boys-Smith and James Wildblood: Interview with Alice Coleman, housing visionary “She despairs of what is being built in London now (‘A lot of the things Boris said seemed quite good but lately he seems to have gone to the other extreme’) and of current estate regenerations. Indeed she is a forceful critic of the whole planning system. The length of her perspective permits her to countenance a world – or at least a Britain – without much of a planning system at all, as was the case for over a quarter of her life. She sees the basic evils in urban design – anonymity and sameness – still marring the outcomes of the town planning system. She complains that the insertion of a planning authority between property purchaser and builder disrupted the reciprocal relationship of buyer and seller.” Read More http://bit.ly/1sFYNuU

Mark Wallace: The figures which show today’s strike was a damp squib “The fact is that a remarkably low proportion of trade unionists chose to strike today – and public services are far better able to continue without them than in the past. As I’ve written before, most people don’t join unions to strike, they join them for moderate, pragmatic reasons…The popularity of left wing militancy and the power of its main tactic are on the wane – and ignoring it cannot hold back the tide forever. Despite the rhetoric about years of the ‘ConDem’ government, mounting anger etc etc, today’s strike was far less effective than those early in the parliament. One wonders how long the union bosses can hold on to control and sustain their claims of mass political support while, outside their bunkers, their own members are going to work rather than standing on the picket lines.” Read More http://bit.ly/1q3imA0

Andrew Gimson: Profile: Simon Danczuk, the tough Rochdale MP unafraid to ask the difficult questions on child sex abuse “If the Labour Party had more MPs like Simon Danczuk, the Conservatives would have scant chance of winning the next general election…Danczuk, first elected as MP for Rochdale in 2010, has come to prominence as one of the few MPs prepared to ask why child sex abuse committed by public figures has for many years been covered up. This role was thrust upon him by his discovery that one of his predecessors in Rochdale, Cyril Smith – who captured the seat for the Liberals in a by-election in 1972, stood down undefeated in 1992 and only died in 2010 – was a brutal and prolific abuser of boys. Some politicians who found themselves in this position would have done the minimum…Danczuk, together with Matthew Baker, has instead written a book on the subject, Smile for the Camera – The Double Life of Cyril Smith, published earlier this year by Biteback.” Read More http://bit.ly/1zr95U4

]]>http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/camerons-ability-to-neutralise-opponents-is-brilliantly-illustrated-by-his-handling-of-the-new-surveillance-law/feed/0Why Critical Headlines About Donor Dinners Raise A Smile In Downing Streethttp://www.conservativeintelligence.com/why-critical-headlines-about-donor-dinners-raise-a-smile-in-downing-street/
http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/why-critical-headlines-about-donor-dinners-raise-a-smile-in-downing-street/#commentsFri, 04 Jul 2014 15:05:26 +0000http://www.conservativeintelligence.com/?p=2055In politics, as with so many things, it’s tempting to judge a book by its cover. The personalities, the catchphrases, the emotional and cultural baggage carried by politicians and parties all compete for our attention.

They’re important, of course, but they’re only one part of the political process. The showbiz elements often distract people from looking at the machinery, which counts for just as much – and sometimes even more.

Just as you wouldn’t buy a car based purely on its colour or bodywork, it’s impossible to get an accurate idea of the political scene without considering the potential for each party to project its messages to the people come election time.

That’s why this week’s most important political story is party finances.

Labour are still in severe financial difficulties. They have outstanding debts, creaking relationships with some of their union backers and the Co-Operative is more occupied by repairing its own finances than in bailing the party out.

At the same time, Ed Miliband’s early ambitions to bring in vast amounts via millions of small donations have evaporated.

By contrast, the Conservatives are now debt-free and on track to raise enough to spend the maximum amount allowed by the Electoral Commission on the 2015 campaign. Given the concerns that right-wing fund managers and traditionalists were being tempted away by UKIP, that is better news than expected.

Already the Opposition are trying to spin the disparity in their favour, posing as the plucky underdogs up against wealthy fat-cats. The reality, though, is that while the Conservative fund-raising effort has been successful, Labour are at a disadvantage largely due to their own failings.

Tony Blair demonstrated that there is no inherent reason why Labour should fail to raise money. The uncomfortable truth for Ed Miliband is that his coffers are empty because too few people think he would make a good Prime Minister.

In fact, his anti-business rhetoric may have deepened the problem further by encouraging Tory donors to open their chequebooks for fear of what might happen to the economy if “Red Ed” were to get into government.

As my grandmother used to say, “money isn’t everything – but it’s a good earthly friend”. While it’s perfectly possible to have a big budget and still lose, it’s much harder to win without the money to finance a full campaign.

Labour will no doubt continue to flannel, but it will be increasingly hard for Miliband to distract from the financial problems at the heart of his party. We’ve already been told that they will focus cash online and in the marginals, but that is an excuse rather than a solution.

Similarly, the attempts to make Tory fundraising successes into weaknesses will make little impact on David Cameron. If the price of raising large amounts is having to put up with some negative Guardian headlines about dining with donors, he will gladly pay it.

After all, he knows that Ed Miliband would be doing exactly the same if he could – but he can’t.

By Mark Wallace

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WEEK ON CONSERVATIVEHOME

Paul Goodman: Europe: Cameron’s steeplechase by moonlight‘The Prime Minister is by background and inclination a supporter of Britain’s EU membership. He will want to return from any renegotiation recommending an In Vote. The gamble which he is taking couldn’t be more obvious. Wanting to stay In, he will keeping warning Merkel that Britain could go Out – thus dropping a hint that he might have to back such a course…Cameron is thus pursuing what Robert Blake, in his biography of Disraeli, called a steeplechase by moonlight. These are as perilous as they are exhilarating.’ – Read More http://bit.ly/1mtFdwm

Peter Franklin: The state should stop subsidising poverty pay ‘The modern welfare state effectively transfers resources from companies who do pay a just wage to those who don’t. This represents a major distortion of the market – one that all conservatives should object to. Is there anything government can do put a stop to this?’ – Read More http://bit.ly/1mfWxus

Benedict Rogers: Cameron is the modern-day Martin Luther ‘In five hundred years the dispute has moved from the theological to the political, and 730 miles from Rome to Brussels. The question, though, is the same: can we reform an enormous, overbearing, unwieldy institution founded with good intentions and a worthy vision but given to corrupt practices, or do we need to split?’ – Read More http://bit.ly/1mMOPCi

Andrew Gimson: Profile: Liam Fox – Will he make it back to Cabinet in the reshuffle? ‘What if Fox is seen as too much his own man? While competing for the Tory leadership, he declared, after calling for the abortion time limit to be reduced to 12 to 14 weeks: “I’m not going to pretend that my views are other than they are for the sake of political convenience.” The candour that lends him authenticity could also sink him.’ – Read More http://bit.ly/1mqjYkK

Nadhim Zahawi MP: The third way that could save Iraq from collapse ‘Focus groups run by YouGov have shown that Sunni areas do not identify with an independent state in the same way as many Kurds do. But what they do want is a bigger share of the political pie in Iraq. Unfortunately, the federalism enshrined in the 2005 Iraqi constitution has yet to be given a fair chance; what we have seen over the past eleven years has only been a half-hearted attempt, pushed by the Kurds, and undermined by the central government.’ – Read More http://bit.ly/1qwQ1RM

Fiona Bruce MP: How the Government’s three parent policy is risking genetic abnormalities ‘The Government needs to slow down, consult other experts and not bring any legislation to Parliament unless or until all the necessary preclinical work has been concluded and published in peer reviewed journals…No mother wants to conceive a child with mitochondrial disease but neither do they wish to conceive a child with genetic abnormalities because we have rushed into introducing scientific techniques which should have been tested more robustly.’ – Read More http://bit.ly/1yYGR2V